I've always longed for the option to have previously read comments either grayed out or hidden. As it is, I mainly read articles days after they're posted; if I read them when they're fresh, it's too tedious to read through again to see what was added later. So yes, one vote of interest.
Interesting. I didn't know that about Morocco, et al.
But even if what you said above about Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt is completely true, the fact would still remain that Bush took the country to 'war' (scare quotes because we have not declared war, nor even an enemy) by lying to the American people. What percentage of the population agrees that we should be positioning ourselves to conquer one or more of those countries? What, that question can't really be answered because we, as a nation, have not had public discussion of such a thing? Well, that's bad, mkay?
I've recently been exposed to the idea that the basic difference between what we think of as left and right political viewpoints is that, IN BROAD TERMS, those on the left feel that the nation exists to meet the needs of the people, while those on the right feel that the people serve the needs of the nation. Viewed that way, I would be quite firmly on the left, and I therefore feel very strongly that such *massive* decisions as whether or not to conquer a half dozen sovereign nations do not belong to Bush/Cheney & Co.
I know it's fashionable to paint Bush-backers as baby-mulchers, but some of us still have our wits about us:-).
I said that only in reference to the AC I replied to, as a response to his apparent belief that holding anti-war views is quite obviously a massive character flaw. I'm as anti-war and pacifistic by nature as anybody you'll never meet; that does not, however, mean that I would never fight a war. I would gladly (if not cheerfully) be first in line to pick up a rifle and charge headlong against any force attacking our nation. But I also feel just as strongly that when things come to the point of slaughtering your fellow man, all else has failed miserably.
I do know quite a few people who intend to vote for Bush/Cheney next Tuesday who are quite intelligent, but we will have to agree to disagree that any of them have their wits about them. That's not to say that Kerry will be the best president we've ever had, but to be honest, if Bush/Cheney were running against Nixon/Kissinger, I'd probably be one of the last undecided voters in the land.
And as long as we're pigeonholing ourselves on the second tier issues as well, I'm pro *everybody's* rights, think that the income tax system is badly broken but that replacement with excise tax is a horrible idea, and feel that if the right wants full personhood for a fertilized egg, that can only be granted in exchange for revocation of corporate personhood.
I still think the ports should be blocked, but only by default, and they should be openable at the request of the customer...
I see that as treating symptoms rather than the cause, and working against old school market forces. We're just now getting to a point where more than 5% of computer users are aware of these issues and how widespread they've become. If Grandma had her internet access cut off until she paid a neighborhood geek $50 to come over and delouse her computer, only to find herself in the same situation a few weeks later, she'd realize that she either needs to stop using the 'net (not desirable in my opinion), learn more about security and computers in general (obviously desirable), or choose something other than Windows the next time she upgrades (also very desirable).
Under a ports-are-blocked-till-you-request-otherwise scheme, she'd simply not know that she's got a problem, and continue buying the same flakey OS over and over and over and over again. In essence, the ISPs would be helping to conceal the true cost of Windows, whereas keeping things open but penalizing transgressions would cause people to evaluate things from a more informed point of view.
But frankly, I see your plan as being much more likely to happen than mine. That's life in the big city.
You say you disagree with Bush about everything except the War on Terror, and will therefore vote for him.
Yet it doesn't bother you that he's conquered Iraq instead of fighting said war? Nevermind that he's 'declared war' on a tactic rather than an enemy. If Roosevelt had attacked New Zealand on December 8th, 1941, I suppose you would have praised him as a strong wartime leader?
I'm also amused (not to mention horrified) that you seem to think a strong aversion to war is a *bad* thing. Of the two candidates, which of them do you think has a clearer understanding of how war is fought?
Jeebus, I can't believe I'm letting myself be trolled by some fourteen year old AC with a mastery of copy and paste. You're laughing at me from the living room of your momma's trailer, aren't you?
...the distinction between what could be considered...
As soon as I started reading your reply I realized I didn't phrase mine so well in that regard.
But I think we disagree on the fundamental nature of an ISP's role: I want an Internet Service Provider, not a Web Service Provider. Should I have to pay extra or get approval to open up a given port so that I can access my home computer from my office, or any other boneheaded thing that I think might be cool to play with?
I totally understand where you're coming from in wanting to see the packet spewing zombies brought under control, but I think your approach to the matter is very shortsighted. Although I'm no n00b, I'm certainly no 1337 H@x0R, either (see?). But as time goes by, I'm learning how to do lots of cool things with my consumer friendly Unix-based OS.
Under your plan, I might as well trade my computer in on a WebTV. I just don't see the justification for me to lose the right to play with any port or protocol that piques my interest simply because your employer gets too much spam (yes, I realize I'm oversimplifying things). Especially when the ISPs aren't doing their part (I can't even properly spell in leetspeek, yet I can give you a list of rr.com users that are infected with Nimda, Code Red, etc., and it's even hairier when I use tcpdump as a Matrix screensaver), it's far from clear why I should have arbitrary restrictions placed on *my* use of teh intarweb. I play by the rules. I don't port-scan people, my computer's not a spam relay, etc., etc., etc. If any of that should change, they've already got papers with my signature on them saying they can cut my line. And they certainly know where I live.
So to sum up, I'd go back to dialup (*gulp!*) before I'd pay for a service with even one port that I'd never have used anyway blocked.
What's frustrating for *me* is that I ditched Cingular over outrageous billing issues, and moved to SunComm/AT&T. So now I guess I move over to Alltel, as I have a very strict policy: if a company screws me, I will give them a second chance; if they screw me again, I will go to my grave without ever giving them another penny, no matter what it costs me in the long run.
At least I won't have to deal with the anguish of number portability taking effect two months after I finally ditched Cingular.
First of all, the Troll mod you received is way wrong, and if I see it in M2 I will click 'Unfair' just as hard as my little mouse will allow.
Secondly, you're wrong. Would you care to list all the ports that are to be accessed only by properly accredited business users?
For a simple example, I have RoadRunner cable at home, and a site hosted with GoDaddy. For me to send an email from my.com address using my mail client at home, I need to do exactly what you're saying I shouldn't be allowed to do. And the reasoning you give is that the Windows lusers down the block are infected. That would be tantamount to my phone company decreeing that I can't send a fax or participate in a conference call from home, since I only pay residential prices. I believe some phone carriers have tried that in the past, but were smacked down pretty resoundingly.
I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, but it seems to me that you're letting workplace frustrations cloud your judgement on this matter.
Unfortunately, most people would rather toss bombs than to do the hard work of finding out what is really going on.
Check back Nov. 3rd, when we know how the lists were used.
I agree with everything you said, but isn't this one of those situations where, according to prevalent thinking, you have to act preemptively, otherwise it'll be too late to avert whatever's about to happen?
If they are so worried about keeping likely Democratic voters from casting ballots, maybe they really don't have root on all the electronic voting machines.
Up through either 10.2 or 10.3 it was possible to run it on a 603 or 604. I don't think the 601 has been capable since the days of NeXT.
My first OS X machine was 10.0 and 10.1 on a Umax S-900 with dual 200mhz 604s. A friend runs 9.1 on that one now. My next one was a 7500 with a 500mhz G3 in it, and another friend currently runs 10.3.5 on that one. He says that QE visuals via SSH->VNC on his uber-crappy WinXP laptop is actually quite impressive, considering.
Ryan Rempel is a left handed motherfucking genius. (well, assuming he's left handed, that is.)
I strongly disagree with the description of one who will inherit complete autonomy over a people and their nation solely by which vagnia pooted him forth as "rightful."
Isn't that one of the core American ideals, that succession of power by birth rather than merit is the exact opposite of "rightful?"
Do you honestly think that every Iraqi who attacks US soldiers is on Saddam Hussein's side?
That's an excellent point. I'm about as far from a Bush supporter as you will ever find, but if any other nation's troops laid siege to the White House, you can bet your ass I would lay down my life in defense of our nation's sovereign leader. (how weird it is to find myself saying that about Dubya)
Slashdot Mirror
I've always longed for the option to have previously read comments either grayed out or hidden. As it is, I mainly read articles days after they're posted; if I read them when they're fresh, it's too tedious to read through again to see what was added later. So yes, one vote of interest.
Theorists?
That must be some new usage of the term with which I'm not familiar.
Our educational system has already let them down; c'mon, have a heart!
LOLOLOL An absentee ballet?
That's about the only kind of ballet I'd ever want to attend. But then, I don't suppose I'd actually be present, so...
Umm...
*my head asplode*
Interesting. I didn't know that about Morocco, et al.
:-).
But even if what you said above about Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt is completely true, the fact would still remain that Bush took the country to 'war' (scare quotes because we have not declared war, nor even an enemy) by lying to the American people. What percentage of the population agrees that we should be positioning ourselves to conquer one or more of those countries? What, that question can't really be answered because we, as a nation, have not had public discussion of such a thing? Well, that's bad, mkay?
I've recently been exposed to the idea that the basic difference between what we think of as left and right political viewpoints is that, IN BROAD TERMS, those on the left feel that the nation exists to meet the needs of the people, while those on the right feel that the people serve the needs of the nation. Viewed that way, I would be quite firmly on the left, and I therefore feel very strongly that such *massive* decisions as whether or not to conquer a half dozen sovereign nations do not belong to Bush/Cheney & Co.
I know it's fashionable to paint Bush-backers as baby-mulchers, but some of us still have our wits about us
I said that only in reference to the AC I replied to, as a response to his apparent belief that holding anti-war views is quite obviously a massive character flaw. I'm as anti-war and pacifistic by nature as anybody you'll never meet; that does not, however, mean that I would never fight a war. I would gladly (if not cheerfully) be first in line to pick up a rifle and charge headlong against any force attacking our nation. But I also feel just as strongly that when things come to the point of slaughtering your fellow man, all else has failed miserably.
I do know quite a few people who intend to vote for Bush/Cheney next Tuesday who are quite intelligent, but we will have to agree to disagree that any of them have their wits about them. That's not to say that Kerry will be the best president we've ever had, but to be honest, if Bush/Cheney were running against Nixon/Kissinger, I'd probably be one of the last undecided voters in the land.
And as long as we're pigeonholing ourselves on the second tier issues as well, I'm pro *everybody's* rights, think that the income tax system is badly broken but that replacement with excise tax is a horrible idea, and feel that if the right wants full personhood for a fertilized egg, that can only be granted in exchange for revocation of corporate personhood.
You've helped me refine my position, then.
Ahh, every slashdotter's wet dream. Thank you.
I still think the ports should be blocked, but only by default, and they should be openable at the request of the customer...
I see that as treating symptoms rather than the cause, and working against old school market forces. We're just now getting to a point where more than 5% of computer users are aware of these issues and how widespread they've become. If Grandma had her internet access cut off until she paid a neighborhood geek $50 to come over and delouse her computer, only to find herself in the same situation a few weeks later, she'd realize that she either needs to stop using the 'net (not desirable in my opinion), learn more about security and computers in general (obviously desirable), or choose something other than Windows the next time she upgrades (also very desirable).
Under a ports-are-blocked-till-you-request-otherwise scheme, she'd simply not know that she's got a problem, and continue buying the same flakey OS over and over and over and over again. In essence, the ISPs would be helping to conceal the true cost of Windows, whereas keeping things open but penalizing transgressions would cause people to evaluate things from a more informed point of view.
But frankly, I see your plan as being much more likely to happen than mine. That's life in the big city.
You say you disagree with Bush about everything except the War on Terror, and will therefore vote for him.
Yet it doesn't bother you that he's conquered Iraq instead of fighting said war? Nevermind that he's 'declared war' on a tactic rather than an enemy. If Roosevelt had attacked New Zealand on December 8th, 1941, I suppose you would have praised him as a strong wartime leader?
I'm also amused (not to mention horrified) that you seem to think a strong aversion to war is a *bad* thing. Of the two candidates, which of them do you think has a clearer understanding of how war is fought?
Jeebus, I can't believe I'm letting myself be trolled by some fourteen year old AC with a mastery of copy and paste. You're laughing at me from the living room of your momma's trailer, aren't you?
...the distinction between what could be considered...
As soon as I started reading your reply I realized I didn't phrase mine so well in that regard.
But I think we disagree on the fundamental nature of an ISP's role: I want an Internet Service Provider, not a Web Service Provider. Should I have to pay extra or get approval to open up a given port so that I can access my home computer from my office, or any other boneheaded thing that I think might be cool to play with?
I totally understand where you're coming from in wanting to see the packet spewing zombies brought under control, but I think your approach to the matter is very shortsighted. Although I'm no n00b, I'm certainly no 1337 H@x0R, either (see?). But as time goes by, I'm learning how to do lots of cool things with my consumer friendly Unix-based OS.
Under your plan, I might as well trade my computer in on a WebTV. I just don't see the justification for me to lose the right to play with any port or protocol that piques my interest simply because your employer gets too much spam (yes, I realize I'm oversimplifying things). Especially when the ISPs aren't doing their part (I can't even properly spell in leetspeek, yet I can give you a list of rr.com users that are infected with Nimda, Code Red, etc., and it's even hairier when I use tcpdump as a Matrix screensaver), it's far from clear why I should have arbitrary restrictions placed on *my* use of teh intarweb. I play by the rules. I don't port-scan people, my computer's not a spam relay, etc., etc., etc. If any of that should change, they've already got papers with my signature on them saying they can cut my line. And they certainly know where I live.
So to sum up, I'd go back to dialup (*gulp!*) before I'd pay for a service with even one port that I'd never have used anyway blocked.
*struggling*
...to resist flaming
...the ignorant assclown
trying so hard...
OH, THE AGONY!!!!
p.s. Congrats on getting through that comment without mentioning France. It can't have been easy.
What's frustrating for *me* is that I ditched Cingular over outrageous billing issues, and moved to SunComm/AT&T. So now I guess I move over to Alltel, as I have a very strict policy: if a company screws me, I will give them a second chance; if they screw me again, I will go to my grave without ever giving them another penny, no matter what it costs me in the long run.
At least I won't have to deal with the anguish of number portability taking effect two months after I finally ditched Cingular.
First of all, the Troll mod you received is way wrong, and if I see it in M2 I will click 'Unfair' just as hard as my little mouse will allow.
.com address using my mail client at home, I need to do exactly what you're saying I shouldn't be allowed to do. And the reasoning you give is that the Windows lusers down the block are infected. That would be tantamount to my phone company decreeing that I can't send a fax or participate in a conference call from home, since I only pay residential prices. I believe some phone carriers have tried that in the past, but were smacked down pretty resoundingly.
Secondly, you're wrong. Would you care to list all the ports that are to be accessed only by properly accredited business users?
For a simple example, I have RoadRunner cable at home, and a site hosted with GoDaddy. For me to send an email from my
I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person, but it seems to me that you're letting workplace frustrations cloud your judgement on this matter.
Damn!
I thought *I* was a bandw... oh, wait. Nevermind.
Unfortunately, most people would rather toss bombs than to do the hard work of finding out what is really going on.
Check back Nov. 3rd, when we know how the lists were used.
I agree with everything you said, but isn't this one of those situations where, according to prevalent thinking, you have to act preemptively, otherwise it'll be too late to avert whatever's about to happen?
If they are so worried about keeping likely Democratic voters from casting ballots, maybe they really don't have root on all the electronic voting machines.
*twitch*
*sigh*
I'll donate a 610 with a DOS card in it... I've always wanted to visit the past!
Not all of 'em.
Up through either 10.2 or 10.3 it was possible to run it on a 603 or 604. I don't think the 601 has been capable since the days of NeXT.
My first OS X machine was 10.0 and 10.1 on a Umax S-900 with dual 200mhz 604s. A friend runs 9.1 on that one now. My next one was a 7500 with a 500mhz G3 in it, and another friend currently runs 10.3.5 on that one. He says that QE visuals via SSH->VNC on his uber-crappy WinXP laptop is actually quite impressive, considering.
Ryan Rempel is a left handed motherfucking genius. (well, assuming he's left handed, that is.)
That's excellent.
When you get tired of squinting at it, Exposé comes in very handy for scaling it down.
Heh. They just captured R2D2.
Oww.
That hurt to think about.
hopefully earning a loyal ally and maintaining relative stability
Where I come from (yellow sun and a 24 hour day) that's not what we would consider 'stable.'
I strongly disagree with the description of one who will inherit complete autonomy over a people and their nation solely by which vagnia pooted him forth as "rightful."
Isn't that one of the core American ideals, that succession of power by birth rather than merit is the exact opposite of "rightful?"
Do you honestly think that every Iraqi who attacks US soldiers is on Saddam Hussein's side?
That's an excellent point. I'm about as far from a Bush supporter as you will ever find, but if any other nation's troops laid siege to the White House, you can bet your ass I would lay down my life in defense of our nation's sovereign leader. (how weird it is to find myself saying that about Dubya)
Another three hours, huh? Hell, no point going to the gym today.
*runs off to find a bottle of whisky and a redhead*